Quote:
Originally Posted by Sauron the White
Lalwende ... this is really quite simple. Either JRRTolkien was a human being like the rest of us or he was a God. If he was a human being, then he was not perfect and his work was not perfect. It would be the worst sort of pride and hubris to think that one cannot be improved upon.
I do not believe Tolkien was a god, God or GOD. And thus, I do not believe his work was perfect allowing not an iota of room for improvement.
.
|
What exactly is this hypothetical perfection that you seek though? Who is judging it? Why do you want it?
Art is not perfect. Fact.
Taking Tolkien apart to find the bricks and rebuild them into some perfect tower would for some involve the removal of Tom for example. To me, that would destroy it. Tom alas, is not suited to the modern taste. Tastes which are governed by all kinds of things which are not necessarily artistic choices.
Politics for example. I note that Jackson was rumoured also to be remaking the British classic Dambusters and there was plenty of discussion about whether he would rename Guy Gibson's dog; the conclusion was he undoubtedly would. And even Susan's treatment in Narnia may be something I hate but I would never be so presumptious as to think if her end were forever Bowdlerised out of future editions then it would be OK. Because it wouldn't be OK at all. It would be wrong.
But such things are entirely and utterly subjective.
Your improvements to Tolkien are not mine. Mine are not yours. Who is going to decide which is 'correct'? I'm sure you appreciate the kind of subjectivity and tail chasing this can only result in.
The easy answer to which improvements are 'best' or 'appropriate' is that ultimately, none are.
They are not 'improvements', it would be sheer arrogance to claim your own version was better. They are instead 'versions' or 'interpretations'.